Dismissed

Surendra Mishra and Another v. Union of India and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2018A227/2144/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition under Article 227 seeking restoration of land and compensation. It held that since the petitioners had accepted compensation, the land vested in the State and the claim cannot be entertained. Additionally, the petition challenging the civil court's injunction rejection was not directly maintainable under Article 227.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; prayer for restoration of possession and compensation not entertained; petition not directly maintainable under Article 227 to challenge appealable order.

Surendra Mishra and Another Vs Union of India and 2 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2144 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Surendra Mishra And Another Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi,Alok Ranjan Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Pranjal Mehrotra for the respondent no.2; and perused the record.

¶6

It appears that the land of the petitioners was acquired under the National Highway Act, 1956 for road widening. The petitioners had approached this Court, by filing Writ C No. 4304 of 2016, by alleging that although the land was acquired long back in the year 2009 but the same was not utilized for road widening and, therefore, the same be returned to the petitioners. The said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 15.02.2016 by observing that admittedly the petitioners had accepted the compensation awarded for acquisition of their land and, therefore, the land vested free from all encumbrances in the National Highways Authority of India and as such the petitioners were not liable to claim any part of the land on the allegation that the same was not utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired.

¶7

It appears that despite the aforesaid order, the petitioners approached the Civil Court for grant of an injunction in a pending Suit No. 196 of 2013, which has been rejected by order dated 29.03.2016.

¶8

Assailing the order dated 29.03.2016 and by claiming other reliefs such as a direction upon the respondents to maintain status quo and to restore possession of the plots as well as for payment of compensation, this petition has been filed.

¶9

As the earlier petition of the petitioners was dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 15.02.2016, the claim for restoration of the land cannot be entertained in these proceedings. Otherwise also in so far as the order rejecting the injunction application in Original Suit No. 196 of 2013 is concerned, that is an appealable order and therefore the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not directly maintainable.

¶10

In case, the petitioners had not been paid compensation or had not accepted compensation then the appropriate course for the petitioners is to seek for clarification/deletion of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 15.02.2016 in Writ C No. 4304 of 2016 by moving an appropriate application before the concerned Bench. However, the prayer for restoration of prossession and compensation cannot be entertained in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶11

Subject to above, the petition is dismissed .

¶12

Order Date :- 12.4.2018 Sunil Kr Tiwari

Surendra Mishra and Another v. Union of India and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Mishra and Another v. Union of India and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Intezar Ahmad Vs State of Up and 2 Ors.

Smt. Urmila Devi @ Parwati Devi Vs Nagar Nigam and 3 Others

Mahendra Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/s. E.C.F. Pariyojna, Ghaziabad Vs Late Krishna Pal SinghShishodia and other

Usman Khan Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Suratiya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others